Debates over nonviolence and its connection to neoliberalism are nothing new, but the current wave of civil resistance in Ukraine makes them seem especially pressing. This past Monday, protesters created a blockade around the main government building in the biggest public rally in the country since the Orange Revolution of 2004 and 2005.
What is the cause? President Yanukovich abandoned the Association Agreement and a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement, which would integrate the country further into the European Union. In doing, it would allow European capital greater access to Ukrainian companies by reducing trade barriers. One step closer to the EU, however, means one step away from Russia, and it appears to be due to Kremlin pressure that Yanukovich backed away from the deal. The protests, therefore, seem to be staking out a position against Russian influence, but in favor of neoliberal economic policies. Today, Ukranian president Viktor Yanukovich flew to Russia to meet with Vladimir Putin as protesters continued to defy police.
In an article for The Independent, opposition leader Arseny Yatsenyuk is quoted saying that “Ukraine has woken up in a different state after Yanukovich refused to sign in Vilnius. It is no longer Ukraine.” He compared his country’s current direction to that of autocratic Belarus.
Ukraine would not be the first country in the region to experience trade liberalization as the result of protests. According to the Index of Economic Freedom, a scale for free-market principles created by the Heritage Foundation, a U.S. right-wing think-tank, the 13th most liberalized market in the world is Estonia, one of the participants in the Singing Revolution of the late 1980s and early 1990s. In fact, Estonia and fellow post-revolutionary state Poland are, according to the Index, “among the world’s 10 most improved.” Estonia boasts low tariffs, a corporate income tax of 21 percent, a mere 38.2 percent government ownership of the gross domestic output and a regressive flat tax on personal income.
In their recent article, which provoked a rich discussion on this site, Sean Chabot and Majid Sharifi argue that nonviolent resistance in the tradition of theorist Gene Sharp often leads to trade liberalization. It’s a tradition that emphasizes opposing political authoritarianism (e.g., the EU over Moscow) rather than opposing the dangers posed by unrestrained capital. Chabot and Sharifi contend:
Sharpian scholars usually fail to mention that victorious strategic nonviolence has consistently produced political systems favoring global neoliberal capitalism, the prevailing imperiality in the twenty-first century.
Not all agree with Chabot and Sharifi. On WNV‘s recent blog post about the relationship between Sharpian nonviolence and economics, Stephen Zunes commented that, although it may not be a sufficient condition for a progressive government, political liberty may be a necessary one:
Free elections and political liberty do not guarantee a progressive government or a just society. However, without individual liberties and accountable government, building a just society becomes virtually impossible. Democracy affords a political opening whereby a democratic left stands a chance of challenging the excesses of national and global capitalism.
As we seek to understand the uprising in Ukraine and draw lessons from it, some questions remain that resonate with resistance movements around the world. Is Ukraine’s ongoing civil resistance the kind that Chabot and Majid Sharifi warn against? Does the movement have to choose between Western trade liberalization or Putin-style authoritarianism? Or is there something it can do to confront both at once?
The Neo-liberal faction has a genius for exploiting any person (celebrity, political figure, or unknown), institution (public or private) or event ( natural or man-made) to turn the people against their own interest or what’s good, Just, or even practical.
Please see Naomi Klein’s brilliant and heart-breaking chapter on South Africa, Aparthied , and Nelson Mandela in The Shock Doctrine. And also, read John Rawls A Theory of Justice, especially the concept of The Prisoner’s Dilemma.
On Twitter, political scientist Erica Chenoweth responded to the question posed by the post like this:
Ukrainians want two things: Russian gas at a cheap price and visa-free access to the EU labour market. They think they can have both and I think they are right. An association agreement with the EU is in no way incompatible with a free trade agreement with Russia. The EU and Russia are the best of friends and the contrary notion is a myth which exists only in the American political cloudcuckooland. The association agreement, combined with the agreement with Russia, would be like a tacit association agreement between the EU and both Russia and Belarus. Signing both agreements thus suits the EU, Russia and Ukraine and that is therefore the most likely ultimate outcome. The current political minuet may seem strange to those accustomed only to testosterone-driven American politics, but it is the way we have always conducted politics in Europe. The other interesting point is the total irrelevance of the US to the whole process. The American Empire is clearly in steep decline. Now, isn’t that good news to start off the Christmas season?
I am reminded of Lacan’s comment on the 1968 Paris uprising, “as revolutionaries you aspire to a new master. You will get one.” The aspirations of the many Ukrainians who are struggling for a better country is indeed the crucial question. One might well say that the Ukrainian people have suffered for a thousand years under various masters. It is tragic, that now, after nominally gaining “independence,” politics is still about which master to serve. For a people who have suffered so much and still have so little real political, let alone human, rights, it is tempting to say that even the appearance of “liberty” and “freedom” is better than what they have now — any gains, any victories however small, are worth struggling for. To their credit, Ukrainians are politically savvy enough to understand that nonviolent political action is their best hope for a better world.
Unfortunately, many on the left believe that neoliberal “democracy” and it’s so-called “political liberty” are in fact a kinder master and will open up more opportunity for future change. The question that Chabot and Sharifi have raised is whether neoliberal democracy embodied in regime change really is a better alternative. Will life under the EU Troika be better for most Ukrainians? Many Greeks, Spaniards and Italians don’t think so. Or is turning to neoliberal democracy (shamocracy) merely a changing of the patriarchal guard in the vain hope that the “new” master will be an improvement. Does the neoliberal political and economic system really offer a chance for real structural or just superficial incremental change? Or does the turn to neoliberal shamocracy ensure that the hierarchical political structures that have subjugated Ukrainians for so long remain in place. ( Aside: shamocracy – something that is not what it appears to be and is meant to trick or deceive people.)
If you look at countries like the U.S. the new neoliberal master will not be an improvement. So far Ukrainian police have shown a modicum of restraint compared to the NYPD’s treatment of peaceful nonviolent Occupy protesters. By almost all measures, the power of the neoliberal system to oppress people and take the common wealth is far greater than that of their current oligarchic masters. Right now, Ukrainians have one major political advantage over most people in the West. Most Ukrainians fully understand how corrupt their political system is – it has no legitimacy. Unlike most people in the West who think that their system of governance is a “democracy” and that the neoliberal capitalist economic system is a “better” alternative.
Ukrainians have every reason for resistance and revolt. The question becomes what the real revolutionary aspiration of the Ukrainian people should be — a new master or political and economic independence and human rights. I am also reminded of some of the first Ukrainians the Cossacks, who lived on the borderland between nation states. Their way of real democracy – direct and participatory – was perhaps the only time Ukrainians could be said to be free. What is billed as “democracy” in the neoliberal system is in fact a system of representative republican governance, where political decision are made not by the people but by so called “elected” representatives of the corporations, financial institutions and oligarchs, aka contemporary fascism. The only difference between the economic and governance system that the Ukrainians have now and one under EU integration is that besides the home grown oligarchs, they will have the EU troika and multinational corporations as masters.
Neoliberal what now?
Sorry but Liberalism is Liberalism. Letting people organise according to their whims ( and not a central government’s whims ) sounds like the thing you want the citizens of Ukraine to enjoy. Such a phenomenon would be a strong civil society/private sector (the two terms are basically the same thing*).
In other words, you are advocating for Centrist socio-economic policy and a smaller, less tentacled state (one wonders how the government owning vast chunks of the big corporations in Ukraine, Russia, Khazakstan and especially Belarus has made those countries in any way better for their people).
Unless… you don’t know what you’re advocating? Sorry to seem antagonistic, I’m a Centrist at heart and I don’t really see how freeing human action in and of itself is truly an exercise in long-term imperialism, especially when the results of greater foreign investment are faster economic growth and thus a faster escape from poverty for the people. And isn’t it all about those people?
* What we call the public sector is simply a description of the activities of the state, all of which, however well-intentioned, impinge on the social space that belings to society as a whole.
I’m using “neoliberalism” as Lawrence does, and it certainly isn’t the same as “liberalism” – more like corporatist American libertarianism. “Centrist socio-economic policy” are your words not mine. I don’t even know what that means? Unless its some sort of short-term strategy to play Russia off against the E.U. And for whatever oligarchic government Ukraine gets that might not be a bad plan. Ні!, what I’m talking about is a third way, a socio-economic alternative to global capitalism and neoliberal shamocracy governance. It is the revolutionary creation of new sustainable systems of economics and governance. It’s already going on all over the world, under a myriad of social movements. It’s literally restructuring of society from the current hierarchical to horizontal ones. As Marina Sitrin says, our current political vocabulary is inadequate to accurately describe what is going on. Call it horizontalism or the “commons” it is about creating a new world beyond the market and state. The economic cooperative movement, i.e. Spain, U.S. and elsewhere is a good example. Certainly this way forward would not be an easy one for Ukrainians. But when have Ukrainians ever taken the easy way? Ukrainians have created a remarkable culture under the worst conditions of oppression and exploitation by various patriarchal hierarchies. It is not a cliche to say that Ukraine’s greatest strengths are its people and a culture rooted in the land – mother Earth, mother Ukraine. As far as transitions, it starts by rejecting the “ownership” economic model, whether that be private or state. Regarding governance its is rejecting neoliberal democracy (shamocracy) as a system of governance or political strategy for a better future. It is about waging nonviolence with patience and fortitude, not picking the lesser of two evils. How do you say “all power to the workers’ councils” in Ukrainian?
People interested in this post should also take a look at Nathan’s more recent post on the U.S. neocons’ discourse on Ukraine:
http://dev2.wagingnonviolence.org/2013/12/neocons-want-ukraine/